Usually the week following a contest deadline is slow, and with only four submissions to choose from, my expectations were met. These four reviews are all competent, but none of them standout as being especially better than any another.

The 3D Battles of the World Runner by wolfqueen is a short, simple look at an NES game. There's nothing to get too excited over, and even WQ admits World Runner isn't much more than a time killer. It's hard to get excited over a time killer. Are the foundations for its 3D marvels locked within its simplistic coding? Well, maybe, but if you're going to lump any amount of credit on it, you should at least try to then point to a game where its influence can be seen. The review doesn't paint much of a picture either; no mention of the garish green shrubbery or the bizarre checkerboard Earth the World Runner tromps.

Fallout 3 by Ness is the longest of the four reviews, but because it takes so long to get to -- yes, I'm going to use that phrase -- the "meat and potatoes" of the game I wouldn't even necessarily call it the most comprehensive. I understand the Oblivion reference, but like Lewis, I don't see enough parallels to keep building so much around it. But really, when five paragraphs into a review I read the line "Once you’ve finished the tutorials and character creation activities" I'm wondering it the author had any kind of outline, even in his head, before sitting down to write. It's got to be more succinct or attention-grabbing. The party dynamic and objectives are left fairly vague; you briefly mention people joining your party but don't mention anything more and you mention the main quest takes 10-15 hours but convey almost nothing as to what that consists of. It's not a bad attempt for such a complicated game, but this feels unfocused.

Pickhut offers up Gears of War 2 and I can only offer more of the usual advice to him, which is while he knows exactly what material to cover about a game to get his point across, he needs to proofread his work. Such simple mistakes include subject/verb agreement or the use of "distract" instead of "detract." Thoughts need to be organized and structured better with more thought put into how to transition from one point to another, not just always "speaking of" or "then" or something else. There's a lot of good points that only hit with half their power because the writing is loose and without much tone.

And the winner this week is Iron Tank: The Invasion of Normandy by zippdementia, which came across as the most genuine, because walking away I really thought zipp enjoyed the game. I wasn't a big fan of the strange introduction or even getting into the Solid Snake bit, but he seems to be having the most fun out of the four writers too. The approach works for his nostalgic angle, and it's always great to convey you enjoy what you're doing. Enthusiasm breaks ties; it's not a complicated formula.

Ultimately, nothing really separates the reviews submitted this week, so read them all! And, with Thanksgiving approaching, it should be noted that the HG.com crew really is thankful for the continued support of our user base. Even in the dry weeks. Now pass the gravy.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

Heh. *passes gravy* Thanks for the feedback. I admit this wasn't the easiest game to write about, so that's probably reflected in the review. I'd really just wanted to keep it short and simple, so hopefully I did that at least. I agree that I should've maybe backed up my argument a bit more, but as usual when I think I should do something and don't, I couldn't really find a good place or way to do that. And the better imagery thing never really crossed my mind, haha. I don't think I considered it all that important, though, but I understand your point with it.

Anyway, congrats to the winner(s?). Zipp's might be a game I'd check out later, since the other two are too current for me at the moment.

What espiga does in his free time[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

You're spot on in your take on my review. Definitely the style was not as focused as I'd like it to be, but like you surmised, I was basically having the same kind of fun with the review that I did with the game.

I've said it before, but reviewing older games is tough! Usually there's very little to say, so there's a challenge to be both fun to read while simultaneously critiquing what you can.

Anyways, not my most polished work, but one of my favourite reviews just because I had fun writing it in between playing Legendary.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

Congrats to zip on hos RotW spot, and the rest of the reviewers mentioned.

Thanks for some of the advice you gave, leroux. I'm not really surprised you had problems with the review, because I submitted it a bit too fast. Like, a day after I wrote it. Normally, I'd check and sit on a review for a few days, then finally put it up. Back then, I thought there was no more to say or change, so I figured it would be okay to submit to the site, but a week later, I do kinda regret putting it up pretty quick. While I still feel the way I do about the game in the campaign and multiplayer segments, I do feel bad for neglecting the Horde mode, which is really the game's highlight.